felix dakat wrote:If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as Christian Fundamentalists believe then slavery must be acceptable

I agree, but not because of the verses.

1 Timothy 6:1 "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed." and Titus 2:9 "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back."

The verses just mean: if you are a slave, be a good one. They're not advocating for slavery, but apparently condoning it.

Neither Omar, the Evangelical Christian he was arguing with nor I stated that the Bible did more than condone slavery. But when the author of Colossians says in chapter 4 verse 1 Masters treat your slaves justly and fairly for you know that you also have a master in heaven, evokes a worldview in which slavery is not an aberration but rather an ontological fact. It follows that if someone were to oppose slavery they would be opposing the divine order of things. There's no need to advocate for something that can't be changed because it's built into the structure of Being.

omar wrote:I was having a conversation with a guy at work, a Trump voter, where I was being critical of Trump on conservative ground. I am a conservative, who believes that government should stay the fuck out of how people live their lives and use their own damn money. I also believe that that includes leaving people to believe whatever they want to believe. If people of the same sex want to get married then let them- under the state.As far as the State is concerned-- The Church has its own view on marriage and the right to impose that on member that freely join their ranks.To have the State attempt to regulate what marriage should be is to combine the spheres of religion and politics in what amounts to an American Evangelical version of Sharia-Law.At this point of the conversation, the fellow reminded method this was a State founded on Christian principles. I don't know if a Trump supporter even know what those principles are...but anyway, I mentioned that the founding fathers where more deistic, which is reflected in the imagery behind the dollar bill. Still he persisted, so I brought up slavery. How seriously can we take the christian principles of a slave-owner. I was amazed that even in this day and age people in the Christian faith still defend slavery, christian slave-owners. How hard is it to throw out the filthy water surrounding the baby???My point is that I don't trust people. People make honest mistakes, or act on their own self interest that they code in "christian principles" thoroughly cherry-picking the Bible to do so.Pisses me off that he had the gall to tell me to read the Bible where he says that it condones slavery.

Am I alone on this shit? Is anyone else concerned about the lengths Trump supporters are prepared to go to condone the indefensible?

Condoning something that has already happened and has led to prosperity of the nation is different from condoning ongoing acts of brutality. That was why we chose Trump over Clointonk.*

Mr Reasonable wrote:Some random people saying that it's built on christian principles doesn't trump the part of the constitution that separates church and state.

When someone says that just say, "then why is there a constitutional separation of church and state"?

Though this is about not establishing a state religion and also making sure anyone can practice their religion even if it is not the main one.

It is not saying that one's religious or moral ideas will not affect legislation.

And of course everyone lets their belief system, including religious ideas if they have them, affect what they think should be legislated.

If Trump tried to enact that everyone will be Christian or Muslims cannot practice their religion - and he may very well do the latter - THEN he is merging church and state.

Marriages are run by the state, to various degrees in a myriad of ways. Anyone can go in the woods and have their shaman marry them, even with your horse. But if you want to get a marriage licence you are getting married by the state. And the states have regulations about age and at least implicitly species and the courts have to take seriously when marriage partners want to get divorced, etc.

It's a state thing.

Me I think gays should get to get married. But I have no problem with people who disagree on whatever their grounds trying to influence legislation.

That's what a democracy is. And they get to do that based on whatever drives them, including religion.

There seems to be some fundamental confusion about the separation of church and state which is not, by the way, a law, but kind of summing up of ideas in the constitution.

We all have the right to let our religious and belief system principles affect what we struggle to legislate and stop from being legislated.

Religious people do not have less right to struggle to make things the way they want because what they what they want comes from religious ideas.

We can have all the negative feelings we have because we think their ideas are backward, mean spirited, intrusive or whatever, if we have those reactions, but they are not cheating or breaking the constitution. Even the president. Though I am sure he has broken the constitution in other ways, just like Obama and Bush and....so on, who all pull all sorts of beyond the scope shit.

Ecmandu wrote:Slavery is not just and fair. To be admonished to treat slaves justly and fairly, completely sidesteps the point!

Slavery was necessary for a time though, right? Humans are animals and animals have been slaves until the machine replaced them.

No, we could have managed without slaves. But it sure made life better in some ways for some people. It did allow for concentratoins of wealth in ways that would have been hard, at least without being more creative, without slaves.

If human bodies could do the work, then those bodies could have done the work without being slaves. What would have happened then is that they would have been in some sense employees or part of the community in community works. We might not have had pyramids, sure, but not because we didn't have the labor, but rather because why the fuck would we want to build those fucking things for the bodies of rich assholes.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Marriages are run by the state, to various degrees in a myriad of ways. Anyone can go in the woods and have their shaman marry them, even with your horse. But if you want to get a marriage licence you are getting married by the state. And the states have regulations about age and at least implicitly species and the courts have to take seriously when marriage partners want to get divorced, etc.

It's a state thing.

That is the point that needs to be made.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:We all have the right to let our religious and belief system principles affect what we struggle to legislate and stop from being legislated.

Religious people do not have less right to struggle to make things the way they want because what they what they want comes from religious ideas.

We can have all the negative feelings we have because we think their ideas are backward, mean spirited, intrusive or whatever, if we have those reactions, but they are not cheating or breaking the constitution. Even the president. Though I am sure he has broken the constitution in other ways, just like Obama and Bush and....so on, who all pull all sorts of beyond the scope shit.

I would agree to a certain degree. If it is accepted that the USA is made up of varying cultures and religions, and people have the right to practice their own religion and cultural practices, then this should also be visible in legislation.

If legislation is for the common good, then it should be no problem making sure that this freedom is maintained. It could only be against the common good if one set of principles of one group overruled the principles of another by restrictive legislation. The exception is of course if the principles being questioned were contrary to the common good.

The only wisdom we can hope to acquireIs the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.TS Eliot

Bob wrote:I would agree to a certain degree. If it is accepted that the USA is made up of varying cultures and religions, and people have the right to practice their own religion and cultural practices, then this should also be visible in legislation.

1) But, again, a democracy allows for people to struggle to have legislation that restricts what some people class as simply a private issue and others see as a moral issue. 2) I don't think the distinction is so clear....Drugs, showing off your breasts as a woman, the way you can punish your child, freedom of speech in court or with police -try using curse words in these contexts and see if your sense of cultural freedom is respected - or even, given todays form of capitalism, how one is allowed to behave in a work context or even in one's private life as far as employers are concerned. Yes, one has the 'freedom' to look for work elsewhere.

What seems obviously not a cultural issue to one group may not to another.

If legislation is for the common good, then it should be no problem making sure that this freedom is maintained. It could only be against the common good if one set of principles of one group overruled the principles of another by restrictive legislation. The exception is of course if the principles being questioned were contrary to the common good.

And as, I would guess, a liberal, your concerns are the effects of restriction. To a conservative they are afraid of the effects of no restrictions, when it comes to some things. I see both. I don't want corporations getting at children and I would restrict that - an issue that cuts across those lines. I wouldn't want privitization of schools and then advertising in the schools and via, say, school i-pads and so on. I would restrict corporate freedom and radically. Hell, I would go much further and eliminate a lot of what passes for OK in tv and other marketing. We have the culture of capitalism and I know the corporations love their freedom, but fuck em. Oops. I mean, I am a willing to restrict it.

Here we are dealing with an issue where we are asking for the state to now sanction a same sex marriage. I think it would be better to get the state out of the marriage business, but given the situation, I am for gay marriages.

But I think it is a category error to raise the issue of separate of church and state in relation to people opposed to gay marriage. In fact, it is hypocrisy, given the actual intent of the exclusion and right to practice parts of the constitution.

Because what we are actually saying is 'your position on this issue is coming from religion' so you are per se wrong for wanting to affect legislation. My position is not based on a religion so I can struggle to have my values legislated.

jThat's nto the postion you presented above. But note, you presented a position based on your sense of what American values are and should be. But that's your take. I have a similar take, but I also think that it is very hard to track the effects of what seems personal or free and not hurting. I disagree with the religious conservatives on this one, however.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) But, again, a democracy allows for people to struggle to have legislation that restricts what some people class as simply a private issue and others see as a moral issue. 2) I don't think the distinction is so clear....Drugs, showing off your breasts as a woman, the way you can punish your child, freedom of speech in court or with police -try using curse words in these contexts and see if your sense of cultural freedom is respected - or even, given todays form of capitalism, how one is allowed to behave in a work context or even in one's private life as far as employers are concerned. Yes, one has the 'freedom' to look for work elsewhere.

What seems obviously not a cultural issue to one group may not to another.

I agree, but this is the task of legislation. Nobody said it would be easy, but that is the challenge of the job and quite obviously why, despite the views of the 45th, politics is always a question of compromise. It isn’t just a case of morality or ethics, because that can be varied according to where I come from. It must also be clear to everybody entering the country with intentions to stay, that this is how it is, but it must also be clear to politicians that this is their task.

Unfortunately, vested interests seem to be played out more than is healthy. Democracy isn’t a weapon to undermine the difficult task of representative legislation, although some view it that way, but a way of getting a representation of varying views to the table. The fact that different parties represent different sides of the argument is one thing, but to totally underrepresent a minority is a failure if it has a far reaching effect on society – which obviously has happened many times.

If legislation is for the common good, then it should be no problem making sure that this freedom is maintained. It could only be against the common good if one set of principles of one group overruled the principles of another by restrictive legislation. The exception is of course if the principles being questioned were contrary to the common good.

And as, I would guess, a liberal, your concerns are the effects of restriction. To a conservative they are afraid of the effects of no restrictions, when it comes to some things. I see both. I don't want corporations getting at children and I would restrict that - an issue that cuts across those lines. I wouldn't want privitization of schools and then advertising in the schools and via, say, school i-pads and so on. I would restrict corporate freedom and radically. Hell, I would go much further and eliminate a lot of what passes for OK in tv and other marketing. We have the culture of capitalism and I know the corporations love their freedom, but fuck em. Oops. I mean, I am a willing to restrict it.

Well, you can label me anyway you want but it won’t stick. It seems you have the same attitude as I do. Whenever you have the task of legislating a country as diverse as America is, the task is daunting. The freedom that was envisioned in the constitution clearly couldn’t imagine our times and what people would come up against. It has duly been misused to grant freedoms that have had dramatically adverse effects with all of the consequences.

I think the biggest problem is a lack of diversity amongst the political parties, which also has its dangers, obviously. But a two party system virtually represents a vote of “Yes” or “No” or “I don’t care”. And as long as the vested interests dominate the candidates agenda, nothing short of a revolution could change that. However, it seems to me that the 45th is doing his best to break it, but the perspectives that could follow are not particularly hopeful.

Here we are dealing with an issue where we are asking for the state to now sanction a same sex marriage. I think it would be better to get the state out of the marriage business, but given the situation, I am for gay marriages.

But I think it is a category error to raise the issue of separate of church and state in relation to people opposed to gay marriage. In fact, it is hypocrisy, given the actual intent of the exclusion and right to practice parts of the constitution.

Because what we are actually saying is 'your position on this issue is coming from religion' so you are per se wrong for wanting to affect legislation. My position is not based on a religion so I can struggle to have my values legislated.

That's not the postion you presented above. But note, you presented a position based on your sense of what American values are and should be. But that's your take. I have a similar take, but I also think that it is very hard to track the effects of what seems personal or free and not hurting. I disagree with the religious conservatives on this one, however.

What I was trying to say is that marriage isn’t per se a religious issue. It can be, obviously, but it is more of a legal issue. It can be “any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities“.

Perhaps I was unclear.

The only wisdom we can hope to acquireIs the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.TS Eliot

Bob wrote:I agree, but this is the task of legislation. Nobody said it would be easy, but that is the challenge of the job and quite obviously why, despite the views of the 45th, politics is always a question of compromise.

I don't know about that. If we take any moment in a country's history, it's legislation is not a compromise or set of compromises but distinct demarcations. We can't tell Rosa Park's and her lawyers that segregation is a compromise between slavery and complete equality and this is politics. She will view it as purely wrong and not as a compromise, though at an earlier time she might have viewed it as an improvment.

And then before a compromise is reached there's no reason not to go for what you think is right.

It isn’t just a case of morality or ethics, because that can be varied according to where I come from. It must also be clear to everybody entering the country with intentions to stay, that this is how it is, but it must also be clear to politicians that this is their task.

To compromise? I am not sure if that is their task, but compromise is certainly going to be a frequent reality of their work.

Unfortunately, vested interests seem to be played out more than is healthy. Democracy isn’t a weapon to undermine the difficult task of representative legislation, although some view it that way, but a way of getting a representation of varying views to the table. The fact that different parties represent different sides of the argument is one thing, but to totally underrepresent a minority is a failure if it has a far reaching effect on society – which obviously has happened many times.

Sure. But I am not sure what I wrote that goes against this.

Well, you can label me anyway you want but it won’t stick. It seems you have the same attitude as I do. Whenever you have the task of legislating a country as diverse as America is, the task is daunting. The freedom that was envisioned in the constitution clearly couldn’t imagine our times and what people would come up against. It has duly been misused to grant freedoms that have had dramatically adverse effects with all of the consequences.

I think the biggest problem is a lack of diversity amongst the political parties, which also has its dangers, obviously. But a two party system virtually represents a vote of “Yes” or “No” or “I don’t care”. And as long as the vested interests dominate the candidates agenda, nothing short of a revolution could change that. However, it seems to me that the 45th is doing his best to break it, but the perspectives that could follow are not particularly hopeful.

I'm not defending Trump, him being a complicated set of phenomena and issues, if there every was one. I was reacting to what seemed to me a blanket condemnation of people trying to bring about legislation that would be based on their religious principles. (and note: I am not saying you had this blanket condemnation. But my post that was reaction to other posts in the thread was reacting to this, so the issue carries forward since you are responding to my response. Gets tricky with the various in contexts. You do not seem to be saying this, but I am defending my response to other posts in that context.)

I agree about the 2 party system and don't really see it as even two parties anymore. I think we have an oligarchy. (And oddly, I think the oligarchy was not really pleased with Trump, which doesn't make me like him, but I find it tragically ironic, not ha ha ironic. He is not fundamentally a free trade guy. He more Ross Perotish, with added instabilities, though we never got to see Perot live out whatever his full range of instabilities might have been. But heck, they got him on line with their continued desire to destabilize Syria and menacing Putin, we'll see if they get him to back off from messing with GATT and the new GATTs and future GATTs. It's like the idiot brother got to be king and all the nobles and the rest of the family are trying to keep him from messing with their interests. With Bernie Sanders, they'd probably just have had him put down.)

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't know about that. If we take any moment in a country's history, it's legislation is not a compromise or set of compromises but distinct demarcations. We can't tell Rosa Park's and her lawyers that segregation is a compromise between slavery and complete equality and this is politics. She will view it as purely wrong and not as a compromise, though at an earlier time she might have viewed it as an improvment.

And then before a compromise is reached there's no reason not to go for what you think is right.

The problem is that demarcations, which are a very important part of life, also tend to marginalize and fail to seek ways in which to include minorities. Demarcate a metaphorical square with a metaphorical circle, for example, and you have four areas that can cause you problems if you fail to find some method of inclusion. “Square” societies (which are in fact reality) have often seen themselves as “circles” (some ideal that doesn’t represent reality), and pushed groups outside of the margin.

The example you gave of Rosa Parks is an example of this. Rosa Parks and those like her were part of the “square” society (reality) but there were a lot of people who were convinced that they were “circles” (imagined). Overcoming segregation was an act of inclusion, which had to overcome the perception of the imagined homogeneous (white) society with the reality of a diverse, heterogeneous society which included people of colour. The same can be said of any group that people don’t want to be a part of society.

Of course, you have to change behaviour, but the best way is to promote a consensus within society for laws that you intend to legislate if it doesn’t already represent the views of a majority. Of course, you are sometimes going to have to say, “this is how it is going to be, no discussions.” However, if you don’t want to just exchange the group that was excluded with another group, you have to find ways to include them. You have to make sure that the constituents are going to follow if you want them to support your policy, and coercion is not the best way.

It isn’t just a case of morality or ethics, because that can be varied according to where I come from. It must also be clear to everybody entering the country with intentions to stay, that this is how it is, but it must also be clear to politicians that this is their task.

To compromise? I am not sure if that is their task, but compromise is certainly going to be a frequent reality of their work.

If it is part of their work, then it is their job. To me, it is obvious that the compromise will follow a plan to change things more completely for the common good, and the compromise may be one step. However, I am aware that the vested interests of politicians often don’t work that way. Which is why I wrote:

Democracy isn’t a weapon to undermine the difficult task of representative legislation, although some view it that way, but a way of getting a representation of varying views to the table. The fact that different parties represent different sides of the argument is one thing, but to totally underrepresent a minority is a failure if it has a far reaching effect on society – which obviously has happened many times.

I'm not defending Trump, him being a complicated set of phenomena and issues, if there every was one. I was reacting to what seemed to me a blanket condemnation of people trying to bring about legislation that would be based on their religious principles.

I didn’t intend to put you in that box, but mentioned Trump as the way it is (or they are trying to make it) at the present, but religious principles have to be translated into real political policies, which must represent the best for all (however it may be seen) and not just a one-to-one quote, for example, out of the Bible.

I agree about the 2 party system and don't really see it as even two parties anymore. I think we have an oligarchy. (And oddly, I think the oligarchy was not really pleased with Trump, which doesn't make me like him, but I find it tragically ironic, not ha ha ironic. He is not fundamentally a free trade guy. He more Ross Perotish, with added instabilities, though we never got to see Perot live out whatever his full range of instabilities might have been. But heck, they got him on line with their continued desire to destabilize Syria and menacing Putin, we'll see if they get him to back off from messing with GATT and the new GATTs and future GATTs. It's like the idiot brother got to be king and all the nobles and the rest of the family are trying to keep him from messing with their interests. With Bernie Sanders, they'd probably just have had him put down.)

Trump is Instability! He has hidden and more obvious agendas that are very damaging for millions of people, which is quite normal for a narcissist, and should never have been put in this position. In some ways he acts like a Greek god, petty and vengeful, full of his own importance, with no vision of serving the public. He probably wishes he had the powers of the gods.

The only wisdom we can hope to acquireIs the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.TS Eliot

Bob wrote:The problem is that demarcations, which are a very important part of life, also tend to marginalize and fail to seek ways in which to include minorities. Demarcate a metaphorical square with a metaphorical circle, for example, and you have four areas that can cause you problems if you fail to find some method of inclusion. “Square” societies (which are in fact reality) have often seen themselves as “circles” (some ideal that doesn’t represent reality), and pushed groups outside of the margin.

The example you gave of Rosa Parks is an example of this. Rosa Parks and those like her were part of the “square” society (reality) but there were a lot of people who were convinced that they were “circles” (imagined). Overcoming segregation was an act of inclusion, which had to overcome the perception of the imagined homogeneous (white) society with the reality of a diverse, heterogeneous society which included people of colour. The same can be said of any group that people don’t want to be a part of society.

Of course, you have to change behaviour, but the best way is to promote a consensus within society for laws that you intend to legislate if it doesn’t already represent the views of a majority. Of course, you are sometimes going to have to say, “this is how it is going to be, no discussions.” However, if you don’t want to just exchange the group that was excluded with another group, you have to find ways to include them. You have to make sure that the constituents are going to follow if you want them to support your policy, and coercion is not the best way.

I don't disagree. But there is an implicit disembodied 'you' in the above. The best way [for you] is to promote a consensus.....

If we look at Rosa Parks and the movement around her, they opted to be rather rigid and did not look for a compromise, whatever that would have been. They tried to eliminate segregation, period. They might accept compromises along the way as realists. Of course on the side they are making moral arguments to achieve perhaps not consensus, but enough support.

My point being that there is nothing wrong, per se, with aiming for what one wants and not the compromise. One direct practical reason for this is that the other side will use your aiming directly for compromise against you in the negotiation. And while one may later accept compromises, these will be seen as temporary and this is not per se bad.

I mentioned the disembodied you as an issue because then it is as if we are talking about everyone. But we are individual yous and those particular yous need, often, to go in with a not compromised goal.

If it is part of their work, then it is their job.

It seems to me their job is more complicated. To represent their constituants. To remove or minimize pernicious aspect of legislation, even if this means NOT compromising. If one of the common occurrances is compromise this does not make it THE JOB. Just as disagreeing with their opponents and even allies will be a part of their work, it is not THE JOB. And sometimes their role entails, includes a duty, to NOT compromise.

To me, it is obvious that the compromise will follow a plan to change things more completely for the common good, and the compromise may be one step. However, I am aware that the vested interests of politicians often don’t work that way. Which is why I wrote:

Democracy isn’t a weapon to undermine the difficult task of representative legislation, although some view it that way, but a way of getting a representation of varying views to the table. The fact that different parties represent different sides of the argument is one thing, but to totally underrepresent a minority is a failure if it has a far reaching effect on society – which obviously has happened many times.

Are you willing to compromise on the inclusion of minorities? Like we include some of them or only in some ways? would you go to the table with the intent to find a middle ground or with the goal or including them, period? I understand that for practical reasons you might accept a temporary less than ideal inclusion, but your goal and what seems to what you would consider your responsibility would in the long run be inclusion, period.

You have a morality of inclusion and you struggle to make the world match that.Others have different ones.We can't make our own personal shoulds metashoulds.

Your morality is X.Mine is Y.

But mine is actually right because it does Z, which supercedes your morals.

It's the same when the right says liberals have no values. That conservatives are the only ones with values. Mine are values, yours are not. So my values are the ones we must go with.

Same in the sense that it is trying to create a meta-position to deny the validity of the other person's morals being truly morals.

Oh, you got your belief from a line in the Bible, that is not best for all, in my estimation, so it is invalid.

One can certainly argue that there are problems with determining morals through scripture and so on.

But this thread, it seemed to me, seemed to be implying that 'their' values should not be part of the process because they come from religion. That this is Sharia - but Sharia would be going against the principles of the constitution around exclusion and freedom to practice. While individuals, be they politicians or citizens just, having their morals based on religion does not go against the constitution.

And much of the law is about exclusion. This person is allowed to do this because of X. All others are not.

Ecmandu wrote:Slavery is not just and fair. To be admonished to treat slaves justly and fairly, completely sidesteps the point!

Slavery was necessary for a time though, right? Humans are animals and animals have been slaves until the machine replaced them.

No, we could have managed without slaves. But it sure made life better in some ways for some people. It did allow for concentratoins of wealth in ways that would have been hard, at least without being more creative, without slaves.

If human bodies could do the work, then those bodies could have done the work without being slaves. What would have happened then is that they would have been in some sense employees or part of the community in community works. We might not have had pyramids, sure, but not because we didn't have the labor, but rather because why the fuck would we want to build those fucking things for the bodies of rich assholes.

I suspect the reason we cannot synthesize B12 and are not efficient at synthesizing A or K2 from plant material is testament to the extent to which animals have taken up the slack by doing this work for us. We've been freed from lugging large guts around while spending most of our days eating rather than having available time to concentrate on science and art. This would seem to be a benefit from our perspective. I think human slavery had similar parallels, though it may be more difficult to pin them down. The IQ divergence between the jews and slavs suggests, like animals, each has their own unique abilities that can be harnessed through chore-delegation for the betterment of the group. In other words, the jews could not have developed their verbal acumen without the slaves doing the menial. Shared responsibility doesn't lead to specialization and it's why men and women having opposite strengths yield a more effective relationship: you do what I cannot and I'll do what you cannot and together we can be complementary.

The IQ divergence between the jews and slavs suggests, like animals, each has their own unique abilities that can be harnessed through chore-delegation for the betterment of the group.

What IQ divergence?

I didn't even know they had IQ tests back then.

It's today. Jews have the highest verbal IQ of any group. Slavics have a better mechanical mind. I'm not sure how Asians fit into the picture.

During the same period, laws barred Ashkenazi Jews from most jobs, including farming and crafts, and forced them into finance, management, and international trade. Wealthy Jews had several more children per family than poor Jews. So, genes for cognitive traits such as verbal and mathematical talent, which make a person successful in the few fields where Jews could work, were favored; genes for irrelevant traits, such as spatio-visual abilities, were supported by less selective pressure than in the general population.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi ... elligence#"Natural_History_of_Ashkenazi_Intelligence"

It's today. Jews have the highest verbal IQ of any group. Slavics have a better mechanical mind. I'm not sure how Asians fit into the picture.

So you just suddenly jumped from 'slavery' to the 'Slavic' ethnic group.

I thought that you had just misspelled "slave" when you wrote "slav", cause there where no other clues about your process of thinking.

The English word slave comes from Old French sclave, from the Medieval Latin sclavus, from the Byzantine Greek σκλάβος, which, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some early Medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved.[8][9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

The English word slave comes from Old French sclave, from the Medieval Latin sclavus, from the Byzantine Greek σκλάβος, which, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some early Medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved.[8][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Well, not all Slavs were slaves and they certainly were not slaves of the Jews. So the connection or pattern in terms of IQ seems pretty sketchy.

The English word slave comes from Old French sclave, from the Medieval Latin sclavus, from the Byzantine Greek σκλάβος, which, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some early Medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved.[8][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Well, not all Slavs were slaves and they certainly were not slaves of the Jews. So the connection or pattern in terms of IQ seems pretty sketchy.

Well if the jews were not allowed to do menial labor, then who did it? Whoever did it is responsible for the development of the jews' IQ. I have a hunch that those people were slaves and if nothing else, wage-slaves like what we have today. Almost no one works today as a free choice, but they slave to make someone else rich in order to survive. Slavery has not gone away, but the slaves are simply paid better.

phyllo wrote:So to clarify : you don't mean 'Jews' , you mean Ashkenazi Jews. And you don't mean 'slaves" or "Slavs", you mean anybody who does the menial labor in a society.

Yes, I suppose so.

And you're saying that one group benefits because another group takes on menial work ... which frees up the former group to better themselves.

Yes exactly.

And then what? This can be taken to the point of justifying or rationalizing slavery?

Well yeah, that's where I was heading. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but the capitalists do and they make good arguments for the benefits of profit (which is stolen productivity).

Wasn't KT making an ethical statement about slavery?

I don't know.

phyllo wrote:

Slavery has not gone away, but the slaves are simply paid better.

Wage-slavery isn't actually slavery.

An employee has significantly more control over his life than a slave.

You're arguing the degree of slavery and degree of control. As long as you're compelled to do some work that you don't want to do, then you're a slave to it, right? Nevermind that said work benefits the employer just like slavery benefits the master.

The master used to house his slaves and provide medical care, food, whatnot and now the employer simply issues money so that the slaves can care for themselves. The point remains that it's the job of the employee to make the employer money.

Transcript

so to keep the game going he has to39:03replace the tools and equipment and he39:05has to pay the workers, but he has to pay39:09the workers... here we go folks:39:11less than the value added by the workers39:14when they work. Or to use the technical39:17term economists like: he has to rip the39:20workers off, he has to steal from them39:25part of what their labor added. You know39:29what the lesson here is for those of you39:32who imagined that when you graduate from39:34here you will get a job, in fact, the only39:37job you will accept is39:38one that pays you what you're worth. Ah39:42never gonna happen! The condition of your39:46employment is that you produce more by39:50your labor than you get paid39:52welcome to the capitalist system that's39:57how it works